Yea I don't really but the whole "but they are russians...so its understandable" argument. If France invaded Quebec and said...well most of you are french so its ok" I'd kind of take an issue with it. Not just for territorial reasons but because of the threat of a chronic maple syrup and poutine shortage!
Most of the people alive today in Crimea were born when it was part of the Ukraine and its really just people 65 and older who have any memory otherwise. I'm always doubtful when the solution to cultural differences becomes "let's break apart" rather than "let's work together". Switzerland has 4 different official languages and you don't see france, germany, and/or italy declaring "we must invade to save our people!". If they have been able to make it work I really don't see why Crimea can't.
The crime crises is really the fault of the corrupt european politicians and the people behind it. European politicians are not elected for the most part. They elect themself behind closed doors. So know when everytime they say something it belongs to someone else reason and business.
The west is pushing russia to long on the edge and the circus the americans do i can just laugh about. What Kerry recently said was an insult to the intelligence of all the people he wanted to reach. For me, go russia and do as you wish. The rest of the world does the same, trough wallstreet, sanctions and open warfare with or without a declaration of war or resolution!
@Anduin I am not sure the situation in Syria would be rectified by western intervention. We often forget that while Assad is a total cynical asshole, many of the more powerful rebel groups are also very dubious. There are ethnic tensions here where if one group was able to gain control some of the opposing ethnic or religious groups. Assad is a member of the Alawi Sunni muslims, which is in a minority in Syria, I am really scared that if/when he is toppled, the Alawi's will become prosecuted.
@Aristillius I agree 100%. As bad as Assad is, he has been very protective of all ethnic and religious minorities in Syria (not just Alawites, but all Shia and even Christians). When people decide to intervene they have to think about what comes after. What comes after in this case could be extreme persecution of religious minorities (1/4 of the country is either Shia or Christian) and ethnic minorities (Kurds and Turkmen).
It reminds me a bit of Diem in Vietnam. The west supported him until he proved too brutal for them, and then they allowed him to be assassinated. Yet when he was replaced by one of the generals the war in Vietnam escalated even further.
If Obama were to say "not our business, not our problem." I'd be happy. Must our nose be in every crisis? Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine now? And what did we accomplish in any of them, other then wasting money, getting our own people killed, getting innocents killed, killing innocents, or what? Yea we killed Hussein. So? Iraq's still a mess. Sure Libya killed Gaddafi. So? Libya's still a mess. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Oh well, some other guy named Al-Zawari-something-or-other took his place, and after he died, another. Terrorism continues. Assad is still running around in Syria, and it'll be a mess with or without him. And now we are going to butt heads with Russia over some otherwise completely unimportant piece of land in a country that needs to be split in two. Half that country wants to be Russian, the other half wants to be EU. If they need a civil war to get it done, let them have it. Nobody butted in while America fought its civil war, and thank god for that. If France or someone else had shown up to help the Union, how could we have made them leave? What would we look like today?
Our own house is not in order. Who wants to be like us? With our huge debt, constant political bickering, irrational political decisions, out of control media on both sides, tea party and ultra-liberal freakshows getting all the attention?
Right now, this country sucks. Plain and simple. Yea it might be better than some others, but we are a sick nation, and the cure is a pill we cannot seem to swallow. So we are dying. Our leaders would rather blame each other than fix it. Obama wanted to fix it, I think. He came into the system with all the good intentions in the world, and the system, the parties, the media...chewed him up, spit him out, and turned any solutions he could have brought to the table into media sideshows. "Obamacare" "Benghazi" "Syngenta" "birth certificate." They're all distractions. None of those issues are really important, but they keep us from doing anything. Maintain the status quo. The ship isn't really sinking. Pay no attention to the water coming over the bow. Here, have some tea party.
I'm going to go back to playing Baldur's Gate. Reality is depressing.
Nobody butted in while America fought its civil war, and thank god for that.
True. But I haven't seen anywhere that says there was a threat of civil war here (prior to the Russians invading/attacking/whatever). Also while its true that nobody butt in when America fought its civil war French involvement in the War of Independence was a pretty significant factor in determining its success.
Nobody butted in while America fought its civil war, and thank god for that.
True. But I haven't seen anywhere that says there was a threat of civil war here (prior to the Russians invading/attacking/whatever). Also while its true that nobody butt in when America fought its civil war French involvement in the War of Independence was a pretty significant factor in determining its success.
That really wasn't the point of my post at all.
But if we are going to make it a point, then you need to look more closely at the issue. It's already being called the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. While not technically a civil war, it resulted in the ousting of the president and the installation of a new government. That's basically what happens in a civil war if the anti-institutionalist side wins.
So yea, prior to the Russians invading, there were riots that resulted in open conflict that resulted in a full government change.
But poor young @CrevsDaak would be in the front line and likely to be shot first...
I will start making a plaque...
Most likely I won't even get into the army of any country with common sense, unless it's as tactical leader or user of a high end technological long distance weapon (like a satellite projecting gamma rays over enemy cities). Most likely I would be on a third party against the war itself but somehow being part of the war...
@CrevsDaak The old guys get to control the gamma ray emitting satellite city killers... We need the young guys to scout ahead and check the gamma ray emitting satellite city killers have worked...
Obama wanted to fix it, I think. He came into the system with all the good intentions in the world, and the system, the parties, the media...chewed him up, spit him out, and turned any solutions he could have brought to the table into media sideshows.
Nothing makes me sadder than reading things like this. Very few people know elected officials personally, so anyone who makes assertions about a political leader's intentions just depress me. The president has been a huge disappointment to all the anti-war people who were initially happy with his election.
He campaigned on ending the war on Iraq as early as possible and concentrating on ending Afghanistan. He ended up trying to extend the war in Iraq (past the deadline that Bush of all people agreed to!) and there have been more casualties in Afghanistan under his oversight than that of his predecessor. He campaigned promising to close the Guantanamo Bay facilities, yet has used Executive Orders on everything BUT that issue. He made a promise to be the most transparent administration that would follow the rule of law, as opposed to the previous administration's adoption of the patriot act. Yet has prosecuted journalists and signed the 2013 NDAA that allows for the detention of American citizens on American soil without trial and has expanded the purview of the unaccountable surveillance agencies.
Worst of all is his expansion of the drone program, that has been shown to kills more civilians than manned on-the-ground operations (thus creating more enemies for us in the future) and has dropped bombs on six different countries. Bush waged two wars without a formal declaration... yet Obama waged war in Libya without *any* approval from the legislature at all, despite criticizing the previous administration (rightfully so) for expanding the executive's powers to wage war. Syria, if he had his way, would have made that 7 nations the military has "engaged with" and 4 total wars we were involved in.
Honestly when it comes to issues of war and the US government's overaggressive foreign policy, Obama is exactly like Bush was. It saddens me to see people try to rationalize it like this. The best way to have influence over the policies of politicians that are chosen to rule is to stop making excuses for them.
@Anduin it's very likely to the army to reject me because I don't fit in the physical requeriments. And if there is something I don't like, it's following orders.
Is anyone aware of Venezuela's current happenings? I'm sure that a civil war is coming if it can't be declared as started already.
@booinyoureyes Obama is an exceptional orator, and also an exceptionally smart man. Unfortunately, he was not the revolutionary like he pretended to be, or like Ron Paul really is (it seems). In international politics, Obama is very much a traditional student of the Political Realism school and a is in fact a classic example of "talk nicely, act harshly".
This is no accident, a lot of American leaders do the opposite of their rhetoric. Reagan and Nixon both used extremely aggressive rhetoric against communism to establish their hardliner credentials, but Nixon initiated the rapprochement with China and Reagan ultimately aimed to (and succeeded in) bringing the USSR to the negotiating table.
If you establish a "tough image", then you can get away with "soft policies". The reverse is true of Obama. He worked very hard to establish a friendly face of American foreign policy, in contrast to Bush's almost universally despised and ridiculed public image, to the extent that his opponents coined the term "the apology tour". However this in fact gave Obama the opportunity to implement much more aggressive and (from a geopolitical standpoint) 'successful' policies that furthered American national interests around the world.
Whereas Bush got totally distracted and obsessed with costly and strategically flawed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama determined that China would be America's main geopolitical rival in the 21st Century, and thus the "pivot to Asia" to reclaim the relative influence the US lost in the region during the Bush presidency.
The Chinese official media is largely too sanitised and subtle (unlike Russian media) to say it, but I am sure that Chinese foreign policy strategists regard Obama as a much more dangerous adversary than Bush, who, for all the early bluster and rhetoric (see Spy Plane Crisis of 2001), was pretty benign to China overall.
The sad thing of course is that these geopolitical games are still being played as zero-sum games by major powers even now. I understand Political Realism, but that doesn't make it any less depressing. It is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy...
Obama: I believe that nation-states exist in an anarchic system where international law is unable to reign in powerful actors, and thus I must do what I can to ensure my country's continued pre-eminence and survival... I must protect America from Islamic terrorism and contain the rise of China and the re-emergence of Russia.
Putin: The Americans are trying to weaken Russia and prevent us from reclaiming our rightful place in the world! They are building missile defence systems in Poland, on our doorstep! We must protect our national interests, Assad cannot be allowed to fall in Syria, the Ukraine cannot become yet another NATO dagger pointed at the heart of Russia! We are breaking international law by invading Ukraine? Well it didn't stop America invading Iraq. *shrugs*
Xi (China): The American "Pivot" is 'clearly' aimed at containing the rise of China. It is ludicrous for Hilary Clinton to say that the Western Pacific is a region of core American national interest? The US openly or tacitly supports anyone who happens to have a dispute with China, whether it's a theocracy in Tibet or 'communist' Vietnam! China must develop military capabilities to deny the US Pacific Fleet unrestricted access to our coastal waters!
Obama: See? Look at the Russians supporting Assad and the Chinese supporting the North Koreans. This Russian behaviour is both aggressive and illegal, and those new Chinese weapons are clearly part of an asymmetric warfare strategy designed to neutralize American military superiority in the Pacific! Clearly the international system is still fundamentally anarchic in nature and international institutions and law cannot be depended upon to protect America! We must do more to safeguard American national interests around the world...
Heindrich, you are incredibly astute, and you see more deeply into the reality of what is really happening than I do. There was a time when isolationist policy ruled America. Sadly it was at just the wrong moment in history. It would, however, serve us well now, I think.
There's one reason it's not just as easy as splitting Ukraine in two that hasn't been mentioned here: the Tartars. They've been persecuted by Russia for about 100-200 years straight. The reason Crimea and eastern Ukraine is majority ethnic Russian isn't just that it used to be part of Russia 50 years ago, it's that Russia uprooted or straight up killed the peoples who already lived there in a century long genocide. Now the Tartars are a disenfranchised minority on their own ancestral ground, and I have very little doubt that if Russia were to gain control the oppression would start all over again. There's also a lot of ethnic Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine too (I heard ~40% of the eastern population is nonrussian), and they aren't too keen in joining either.
There's also the issue that the Russian speakers get most of their news directly from Russia rather than Ukrainian media, which has basically led to Putin spoonfeeding them his propaganda about the Maidan Revolters and the new government all being SUPER NAZIS that's going to put all Russians in death camps if they don't let Papa Bear "help" them (and yeah, there were nazis and other nationalists of different extent among the many protesters and an extremist rightwing party is part of the new government, but it's not nearly to the extent of what Russian media is propagating.
Also, have a look at the way they phrased the referendum/popular vote on separation: "Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements". And they are supposed to vote yes or no to that mess of a statement. Seems more like someone is trying to rig the vote to have their way regardless of whether it ends up a Yes or No.
Comparing Ukraine to Syria is like comparing apples and oranges. Syria has an ongoing civil war/revolution within what has been an autocracy for decades. The UN has identified it as a primarily sectarian conflict. While arms and supplies have been provided to either side by various external powers, no other army has boots on the ground.
The Ukraine has just completed a second revolution less than a decade after the first (which led to a repeat ballot due to allegations of widespread fraud and changed the outcome of the election). While ethnicity & language come into it, the divide seems more about the direction Ukraine should take politically. The 2014 Euromaidan protests were fairly specifically about the then-president pulling out of EU free-trade agreements that would have been a precursor to possible EU membership. Russia has been opposed to this, and has offered financial incentives to Ukraine to prevent EU free-trade agreements.
As @Heindrich says, this seems a lot more about Putin's need for friendly buffer states than his concern about ethnic Russians. While Ukraine may have a pro-European west and pro-Russian east, these are obviously internal issues for an autonomous nation to decide.
Russia's military involvement is a worrying factor. While limited to Crimea at present (Putin claims the large numbers of insignia-less, well armed troops present are local volunteers) it does show willingness to use force to intervene in the affairs of adjacent nations. That, and the fact the the "crackdown" on Euromaidan protestors that led to heavy casualties were advised and encouraged by Russian intelligence services, make me fear for any Ukranian who disagrees with Russia.
I can only say I got a very controversial point of view on this: If it weren't for wars, natural disasters and diseases, humanity would only overbreed and our planet would have to succumb to it in the end. We're already with almost 7 billion (!) people on this planet. And natural deaths get postponed more and more as technology evolves. China already has a one child law. Of course wars and such are horrible things, but in some way, they are necessary.
ugh... I hate this pop science over-population myth. It has been debunked so many times yet it gets spread around so much. "Over-population" has some minor ecological consequences, but the idea that it is a strain on resources and bad for the economy is just wrong. Studies have shown that growing populations are a main stimulant for economic growth and that we have enough natural resources (including energy) to accommodate any realistic growing population.
This is a common silly argument used against immigration from people who are protective of what they have and fear competition. I think the idea that war of all thing is necessary for that purpose is the most absurd thing in the world. Every war is accompanied with waste and rationing (ask any kid who wanted candy in London or any American who wanted bread and butter in New York during WWII). Whenever I hear that someone thinks that overpopulation is a drain on the world's resources and war is not, I just want to ask them one simple question:
When was the last time a missile put food on your plate or you drove to work in a tank?
War is infinitely more wasteful than any other activity, and it scares me when people think there is a economic benefit to it. Resources that would go toward real things that people use to improve their every day lives and build great new thins are diverted toward destruction. I see no benefit in it. The only thing that can justify war is a just cause.
PS @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I mean no offense, just disagree with that sentiment. Hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful or anything, since you are a very nice poster
@booinyoureyes There is no justification of war, there is no "a just cause" in war. People, who have the power (politicians or rulers) are sending their slaves (also known as citizens/soldiers) just to have benefit for themselves, regardless what type of benefit it is. May be money, resources, territory... It doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact, that countless people have to die for the "cause" they really doesn't have any part in.
And about overpopulation. There are more and more people on this planet. Because of that, we are using more and more resources. And one day, these resources will end. It's only logical that in the end, overpopulation will become a big trouble. Good thing that I won't live long enough to see it.
This might sound like a corny cliche, but I truly believe that the greatest resource is the human mind. Crude oil would be miles under the ground if someone wasn't smart enough or driven enough to turn it into energy.
To highlight this point: in the mid 1800s the world population was less than a fifth of what it is today and famine was common. Today there are 7 billion people and we actively destroy food... On purpose. Ingenuity solved that problem prett handily, and it is not too difficult to see this continue with future shortfalls.
Most important natural resources are either not limited or completely renewable. Energy is already headed in that direction. I sincerely doubt the future is as bleak as people make it out to be.
Y'know, there is one sure-fire way to send a country into negative birthrate. Make it a stable, prosperous democracy with decent levels of human rights and individual freedoms. Most of Western Europe would have falling populations if immigration didn't make up the difference. Germany has a low birthrate crisis to the extent that the government offers various incentives for parents.
So if you're really worried about rising population, @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud, then providing some form of support to developing nation is the way to go. Education, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Political stability, availability of contraception, better healthcare - as they get better, birthrates fall.
Also if we are worried about environmental problems as well as resources, it is important to note that the two biggest polluters in the world are the Chinese army and the US Department of Defense.
Also if we are worried about environmental problems as well as resources, it is important to note that the two biggest polluters in the world are the Chinese army and the US Department of Defense.
Pff...the US Department of Defense causing pollution. The Bikini Atoll always had a faint green glow
(and yes I realize you are talking about much more recent pollution)
Also if we are worried about environmental problems as well as resources, it is important to note that the two biggest polluters in the world are the Chinese army and the US Department of Defense.
Pff...the US Department of Defense causing pollution. The Bikini Atoll always had a faint green glow
(and yes I realize you are talking about much more recent pollution)
hmmm... I wonder how much a one bedroom apartment there would be. Won't even need a microwave!
@booinyoureyes: So you suggest we calmly have to keep on breeding like rabbits, because everything will be fine? That's very naive. Or maybe those Japanese people actually like living in sky scrapers full of cramped rooms only a few meters big. Because that is where we're headed at: there's only so much space left, and I doubt anyone would have a good life living on top of a mountain in the Alps without being completely dependent on limited local resources or resources transported from elsewhere. A good chunk of our planet isn't fit for habitation, afterall. Or should we start draining seas or something to make more space available. People are already now looking into space travel for the simple reason there just isn't any certainty Earth will keep on lasting. Robots are currently searching for water on Mars. Why do you think that is? Because water is precious, as only 2% of the water available is usable and consumable. The rest is salt water which can practically only be used for fishing and gaining salt. This knowledge actually terrifies me a great deal, because if the human population just goes on breeding (and certain cultures do have a tendency to breed), there will be less and less water availalbe for consumption. Or we'd have to become drastic and start melting ice mountains, which would have a dramatic impact on both Poles. I don't know... You seem awefully carefree, @booinyoureyes. I just can't help worrying what will have become of this planet and humanity in another thousand years.
I'm of the mind that the Earth will be just fine once she shrugs us off like she has so many other toxic species. Until the Sun dies, anyway. But we'll all be long gone by then.
hmm... overpopulation is only a problem if those stay in power who have no visions of a good civilisation. The easiest way is to use condoms, war, spreading deseases and starvation to "fight" this problem instead of using the brain together with empathy... now what is empathy many ask today.
The era of visionary people with a straight heart is over. We live in a world where money rules, thats it and the generations to come will not even notice that there was a time were people actually had a heart that was not corrupt. And this christian and other religious nonsense has done a good job keeping people in a sleep of helplessness...yada yada afterlive heaven... f+++ that kindergarten! The main issue is religion. We know that it is all invented, do a research and stop being a child and dont obey anymore to the poisonous words of clergy man and politicians!
The burning bush of "moses"... was a mushroom this dude ate and that made him go mad. All these prophets were high and today would sit in a mental hospital!
You dont need to be a prophet to see where the story will end. Water is poisened not by accident, the air is polluted not by accident and the earth itself is covered with trash like a toilet but the people who have enough money to live in a way better condition will keep it that way and we poor bastards living in a fantasy world with a jesus and a male god and pinky pinky hollywood stars are to cowardly and immature to finally grow up. Where do you think will the rich people live?
A movie like E-wally was a good hint what it could be (overdramatic yes but terrible enough to show people where we are heading too) ... but right out of the cinema...mommmy i want some mcdonals food, yes my dear we love mcdonals precious meat! burp and thanks god for the good food!
One way to look at population growth is this: Why do people have large families?
Look back at your own family tree. Three or four generations ago I wouldn't be surprised if you see a family with five or more children. Today in developed countries having five kids is pretty unusual, perhaps odd. What has changed in the past 150 or so years?
Partly it's attrition rates. How many of your kids will reach adulthood, and how many will be needed to look after you in old age? Today nearly 100% of children will reach adulthood in developed countries, and most nations have pension plans and social security that mean that you aren't totally dependent on your children when elderly anyway.
Changing attitudes is another. Women are no longer expected to get married and have children at a young age. More women are part of the workforce than even a decade ago, and the decidion to defer having children is common. This is all tied in to better/equal education of women, birth control, attitudes to gender equality and female expectations. This is one reason that female education in third-world countries is a priority for many charities. Better educated women are valuable economically and can drive social change. They tend to have fewer kids, too.
Wealth is a complex factor. Surely if you can afford more children then you have more children? The inverse seems true more often than not. This could be confounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding) as wealthy people are more likely to be educated, have access to healthcare etc, but other factors like quality of life for their children come into play as well. As you are wealthier, you want an even higher quality of life for your child. It's easier to pay for food, clothing, schooling, university, and leave an inheritance for 2-3 children than it is 5 or 6.
TL;DR version: Worldwide birthrates are falling anyway. The only countries with rising birthrates are usually in the middle of war or anarchy. Overall worldwide fertility is forecast to drop to about replacement rate (2.1 children per woman) by about 2050.
Comments
Most of the people alive today in Crimea were born when it was part of the Ukraine and its really just people 65 and older who have any memory otherwise. I'm always doubtful when the solution to cultural differences becomes "let's break apart" rather than "let's work together". Switzerland has 4 different official languages and you don't see france, germany, and/or italy declaring "we must invade to save our people!". If they have been able to make it work I really don't see why Crimea can't.
The west is pushing russia to long on the edge and the circus the americans do i can just laugh about. What Kerry recently said was an insult to the intelligence of all the people he wanted to reach. For me, go russia and do as you wish. The rest of the world does the same, trough wallstreet, sanctions and open warfare with or without a declaration of war or resolution!
It reminds me a bit of Diem in Vietnam. The west supported him until he proved too brutal for them, and then they allowed him to be assassinated. Yet when he was replaced by one of the generals the war in Vietnam escalated even further.
Our own house is not in order. Who wants to be like us? With our huge debt, constant political bickering, irrational political decisions, out of control media on both sides, tea party and ultra-liberal freakshows getting all the attention?
Right now, this country sucks. Plain and simple. Yea it might be better than some others, but we are a sick nation, and the cure is a pill we cannot seem to swallow. So we are dying. Our leaders would rather blame each other than fix it. Obama wanted to fix it, I think. He came into the system with all the good intentions in the world, and the system, the parties, the media...chewed him up, spit him out, and turned any solutions he could have brought to the table into media sideshows. "Obamacare" "Benghazi" "Syngenta" "birth certificate." They're all distractions. None of those issues are really important, but they keep us from doing anything. Maintain the status quo. The ship isn't really sinking. Pay no attention to the water coming over the bow. Here, have some tea party.
I'm going to go back to playing Baldur's Gate. Reality is depressing.
But if we are going to make it a point, then you need to look more closely at the issue. It's already being called the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. While not technically a civil war, it resulted in the ousting of the president and the installation of a new government. That's basically what happens in a civil war if the anti-institutionalist side wins.
So yea, prior to the Russians invading, there were riots that resulted in open conflict that resulted in a full government change.
Most likely I would be on a third party against the war itself but somehow being part of the war...
You'd be surprised...
He campaigned on ending the war on Iraq as early as possible and concentrating on ending Afghanistan. He ended up trying to extend the war in Iraq (past the deadline that Bush of all people agreed to!) and there have been more casualties in Afghanistan under his oversight than that of his predecessor. He campaigned promising to close the Guantanamo Bay facilities, yet has used Executive Orders on everything BUT that issue. He made a promise to be the most transparent administration that would follow the rule of law, as opposed to the previous administration's adoption of the patriot act. Yet has prosecuted journalists and signed the 2013 NDAA that allows for the detention of American citizens on American soil without trial and has expanded the purview of the unaccountable surveillance agencies.
Worst of all is his expansion of the drone program, that has been shown to kills more civilians than manned on-the-ground operations (thus creating more enemies for us in the future) and has dropped bombs on six different countries. Bush waged two wars without a formal declaration... yet Obama waged war in Libya without *any* approval from the legislature at all, despite criticizing the previous administration (rightfully so) for expanding the executive's powers to wage war. Syria, if he had his way, would have made that 7 nations the military has "engaged with" and 4 total wars we were involved in.
Honestly when it comes to issues of war and the US government's overaggressive foreign policy, Obama is exactly like Bush was. It saddens me to see people try to rationalize it like this. The best way to have influence over the policies of politicians that are chosen to rule is to stop making excuses for them.
Is anyone aware of Venezuela's current happenings? I'm sure that a civil war is coming if it can't be declared as started already.
Obama is an exceptional orator, and also an exceptionally smart man. Unfortunately, he was not the revolutionary like he pretended to be, or like Ron Paul really is (it seems). In international politics, Obama is very much a traditional student of the Political Realism school and a is in fact a classic example of "talk nicely, act harshly".
This is no accident, a lot of American leaders do the opposite of their rhetoric. Reagan and Nixon both used extremely aggressive rhetoric against communism to establish their hardliner credentials, but Nixon initiated the rapprochement with China and Reagan ultimately aimed to (and succeeded in) bringing the USSR to the negotiating table.
If you establish a "tough image", then you can get away with "soft policies". The reverse is true of Obama. He worked very hard to establish a friendly face of American foreign policy, in contrast to Bush's almost universally despised and ridiculed public image, to the extent that his opponents coined the term "the apology tour". However this in fact gave Obama the opportunity to implement much more aggressive and (from a geopolitical standpoint) 'successful' policies that furthered American national interests around the world.
Whereas Bush got totally distracted and obsessed with costly and strategically flawed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama determined that China would be America's main geopolitical rival in the 21st Century, and thus the "pivot to Asia" to reclaim the relative influence the US lost in the region during the Bush presidency.
The Chinese official media is largely too sanitised and subtle (unlike Russian media) to say it, but I am sure that Chinese foreign policy strategists regard Obama as a much more dangerous adversary than Bush, who, for all the early bluster and rhetoric (see Spy Plane Crisis of 2001), was pretty benign to China overall.
The sad thing of course is that these geopolitical games are still being played as zero-sum games by major powers even now. I understand Political Realism, but that doesn't make it any less depressing. It is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy...
Obama: I believe that nation-states exist in an anarchic system where international law is unable to reign in powerful actors, and thus I must do what I can to ensure my country's continued pre-eminence and survival... I must protect America from Islamic terrorism and contain the rise of China and the re-emergence of Russia.
Putin: The Americans are trying to weaken Russia and prevent us from reclaiming our rightful place in the world! They are building missile defence systems in Poland, on our doorstep! We must protect our national interests, Assad cannot be allowed to fall in Syria, the Ukraine cannot become yet another NATO dagger pointed at the heart of Russia! We are breaking international law by invading Ukraine? Well it didn't stop America invading Iraq. *shrugs*
Xi (China): The American "Pivot" is 'clearly' aimed at containing the rise of China. It is ludicrous for Hilary Clinton to say that the Western Pacific is a region of core American national interest? The US openly or tacitly supports anyone who happens to have a dispute with China, whether it's a theocracy in Tibet or 'communist' Vietnam! China must develop military capabilities to deny the US Pacific Fleet unrestricted access to our coastal waters!
Obama: See? Look at the Russians supporting Assad and the Chinese supporting the North Koreans. This Russian behaviour is both aggressive and illegal, and those new Chinese weapons are clearly part of an asymmetric warfare strategy designed to neutralize American military superiority in the Pacific! Clearly the international system is still fundamentally anarchic in nature and international institutions and law cannot be depended upon to protect America! We must do more to safeguard American national interests around the world...
There's also the issue that the Russian speakers get most of their news directly from Russia rather than Ukrainian media, which has basically led to Putin spoonfeeding them his propaganda about the Maidan Revolters and the new government all being SUPER NAZIS that's going to put all Russians in death camps if they don't let Papa Bear "help" them (and yeah, there were nazis and other nationalists of different extent among the many protesters and an extremist rightwing party is part of the new government, but it's not nearly to the extent of what Russian media is propagating.
Also, have a look at the way they phrased the referendum/popular vote on separation: "Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements". And they are supposed to vote yes or no to that mess of a statement. Seems more like someone is trying to rig the vote to have their way regardless of whether it ends up a Yes or No.
The Ukraine has just completed a second revolution less than a decade after the first (which led to a repeat ballot due to allegations of widespread fraud and changed the outcome of the election). While ethnicity & language come into it, the divide seems more about the direction Ukraine should take politically. The 2014 Euromaidan protests were fairly specifically about the then-president pulling out of EU free-trade agreements that would have been a precursor to possible EU membership. Russia has been opposed to this, and has offered financial incentives to Ukraine to prevent EU free-trade agreements.
As @Heindrich says, this seems a lot more about Putin's need for friendly buffer states than his concern about ethnic Russians. While Ukraine may have a pro-European west and pro-Russian east, these are obviously internal issues for an autonomous nation to decide.
Russia's military involvement is a worrying factor. While limited to Crimea at present (Putin claims the large numbers of insignia-less, well armed troops present are local volunteers) it does show willingness to use force to intervene in the affairs of adjacent nations. That, and the fact the the "crackdown" on Euromaidan protestors that led to heavy casualties were advised and encouraged by Russian intelligence services, make me fear for any Ukranian who disagrees with Russia.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia
You thought the situation with the EU-Ukraine-Russia was complex and murky? Well guess what: It's even more complex and murky than that!
This is a common silly argument used against immigration from people who are protective of what they have and fear competition. I think the idea that war of all thing is necessary for that purpose is the most absurd thing in the world. Every war is accompanied with waste and rationing (ask any kid who wanted candy in London or any American who wanted bread and butter in New York during WWII). Whenever I hear that someone thinks that overpopulation is a drain on the world's resources and war is not, I just want to ask them one simple question:
When was the last time a missile put food on your plate or you drove to work in a tank?
War is infinitely more wasteful than any other activity, and it scares me when people think there is a economic benefit to it. Resources that would go toward real things that people use to improve their every day lives and build great new thins are diverted toward destruction. I see no benefit in it. The only thing that can justify war is a just cause.
PS @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I mean no offense, just disagree with that sentiment. Hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful or anything, since you are a very nice poster
And about overpopulation. There are more and more people on this planet. Because of that, we are using more and more resources. And one day, these resources will end. It's only logical that in the end, overpopulation will become a big trouble. Good thing that I won't live long enough to see it.
To highlight this point: in the mid 1800s the world population was less than a fifth of what it is today and famine was common. Today there are 7 billion people and we actively destroy food... On purpose. Ingenuity solved that problem prett handily, and it is not too difficult to see this continue with future shortfalls.
Most important natural resources are either not limited or completely renewable. Energy is already headed in that direction. I sincerely doubt the future is as bleak as people make it out to be.
So if you're really worried about rising population, @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud, then providing some form of support to developing nation is the way to go. Education, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Political stability, availability of contraception, better healthcare - as they get better, birthrates fall.
PS: An article I read a while back about increasing population size and why people view it as a problem when it can really be a boon: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html?_r=0
(and yes I realize you are talking about much more recent pollution)
The era of visionary people with a straight heart is over. We live in a world where money rules, thats it and
the generations to come will not even notice that there was a time were people actually had a heart that was not corrupt. And this christian and other religious nonsense has done a good job keeping people in a sleep of helplessness...yada yada afterlive heaven... f+++ that kindergarten! The main issue is religion. We know that it is all invented, do a research and stop being a child and dont obey anymore to the poisonous words of clergy man and politicians!
The burning bush of "moses"... was a mushroom this dude ate and that made him go mad. All these prophets were high and today would sit in a mental hospital!
You dont need to be a prophet to see where the story will end. Water is poisened not by accident, the air is polluted not by accident and the earth itself is covered with trash like a toilet but the people who have enough money to live in a way better condition will keep it that way and we poor bastards living in a fantasy world with a jesus and a male god and pinky pinky hollywood stars are to cowardly and immature to finally grow up. Where do you think will the rich people live?
A movie like E-wally was a good hint what it could be (overdramatic yes but terrible enough to show people where we are heading too) ... but right out of the cinema...mommmy i want some mcdonals food, yes my dear we love mcdonals precious meat! burp and thanks god for the good food!
Look back at your own family tree. Three or four generations ago I wouldn't be surprised if you see a family with five or more children. Today in developed countries having five kids is pretty unusual, perhaps odd. What has changed in the past 150 or so years?
Partly it's attrition rates. How many of your kids will reach adulthood, and how many will be needed to look after you in old age? Today nearly 100% of children will reach adulthood in developed countries, and most nations have pension plans and social security that mean that you aren't totally dependent on your children when elderly anyway.
Changing attitudes is another. Women are no longer expected to get married and have children at a young age. More women are part of the workforce than even a decade ago, and the decidion to defer having children is common. This is all tied in to better/equal education of women, birth control, attitudes to gender equality and female expectations. This is one reason that female education in third-world countries is a priority for many charities. Better educated women are valuable economically and can drive social change. They tend to have fewer kids, too.
Wealth is a complex factor. Surely if you can afford more children then you have more children? The inverse seems true more often than not. This could be confounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding) as wealthy people are more likely to be educated, have access to healthcare etc, but other factors like quality of life for their children come into play as well. As you are wealthier, you want an even higher quality of life for your child. It's easier to pay for food, clothing, schooling, university, and leave an inheritance for 2-3 children than it is 5 or 6.
I did a quick Google and found this article:
http://www.economist.com/node/14743589
TL;DR version:
Worldwide birthrates are falling anyway. The only countries with rising birthrates are usually in the middle of war or anarchy. Overall worldwide fertility is forecast to drop to about replacement rate (2.1 children per woman) by about 2050.